Members of the national media are never so unattractive as when they turn the spotlight on themselves, and their weekend hissy fit after President Obama ignored them proves the point. It was the equivalent of a lovers’ quarrel over leaving the cap off the toothpaste tube. It makes for juicy gossip among the neighbors, but ultimately, nobody really cares.

Yet WaWaWa went the wail when the White House press corps traveled to Florida and couldn’t get a staged picture of Obama playing golf with Tiger Woods. The First Duffer wouldn’t even reveal his score.

The outrage! The drama! How dare he treat us this way!

The answer is obvious. The media gave Obama the milk without making him buy the cow. It’s a little late to demand respect.

For more than four years, the fawning mainstream coverage of the president has been a national disgrace. The only standard was a double standard, and Obama accepted the adoration and demanded more. Never lacking in self-reverence, he came to believe that he can arbitrarily set the terms of news coverage, and cleverly uses carrots and sticks to get his way.

He doles out interviews and chances to ask questions at news conferences to organizations whose coverage flatters him and promotes his agenda. Critical coverage is met with punishment in the form of complaints and being frozen out. To judge from the results, a cold shoulder from the president spurs more fawning!

Just yesterday, with Congress in recess, Obama emerged to demand that Congress stop looming budget cuts. Never was it mentioned that the automatic plan, known as sequester, was his idea and he signed it into law. Now he calls it a “meat cleaver” and wants Congress to reverse course — and pass even more tax hikes, of course.

He was rewarded with front-page stories across the Web that, to the uninformed, made him look like a leader on a key issue. As The New York Times put it, “Obama Turns up the Pressure for a Deal on Budget Cuts.”

Next time, the paper should just send a stenographer.

In truth, none of this is entirely new, which is why the bully pulpit is called the bully pulpit. But Obama has used smart stagecraft and the power of the Oval Office to take the practice to a new level, and has paid no price. As if to taunt the frustrated wretches, the president repeatedly proclaims that his administration “is the most transparent in history.”

It’s hubris wrapped in a lie, but it serves to distract from a far more important angle than the dispute over mere access. Too many news organizations are shockingly uncurious about Obama’s second- term agenda. They apparently don’t want to know, and certainly don’t think the public does, either.

None bother to ask how the president plans to balance the budget or pare the debt or question his claims that he knows how to create jobs. If he does, where are they?

Instead of trying to find out where the president was during the Benghazi slaughter — and whether he slept through a terrorist attack — they demand to know his golf score. Instead of digging for more information about defense nominee Chuck Hagel’s bias and potential conflicts, they want a holiday photo op that is more fitting for a celebrity.

It makes them look petty and him a victim of privacy invasion. The spectacle of reporters waiting on a bus or standing around in rumpled clumps, begging for a wave from Dear Leader, says it all. When they aren’t fed a piece of baloney that passes for news, they whine.

They have only themselves to blame. By giving Obama a free pass, the press abdicated a duty to be skeptical and hold him accountable. By settling for the scoops he wanted them to have, they signaled that they were more lapdogs than watchdogs. They sold out for unrequited love.

There was a time not long ago when journalists believed their mission was to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. It was a rough formula, but also formed the basis of a consistent standard that helped build trust with the public and wary respect from politicians of all persuasions.

Those days are gone. Now most journalists are neither trusted by the public nor respected by the pols. Count that as another legacy of the Age of Obama.

Dems’ spinal gap on unions

It’s neither a surprise that the Democratic mayoral candidates are pandering to unions, nor a mystery about why. To paraphrase Willie Sutton’s line about robbing banks, unions are where the votes are.

The “pledge” by Speaker Christine Quinn, Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, former Comptroller Bill Thompson and others to protect the wages and benefits of the drivers’ union was all the more disturbing because it came as the union agreed to call off its strike, which was especially destructive for families with severely disabled children. Since the pledge had no effect, the only message was that the candidates would roll over in the future.

That’s an invitation to trouble. You can bet that if one of them wins, he or she will quickly be tested on whether strike threats bring a better contract.

That was the point of Mayor Bloomberg’s refusal to budge. He cited a court ruling that favored his desire to eliminate job protections from new bus contracts, but could have caved if he wanted to. The unions gave up only because they realized he had no intention of going wobbly.

The issue isn’t limited to this union. Four state legislators want to end mayoral control of the schools, a move backed by the teachers union. The timing is probably no coincidence, coming as the union is locked in a struggle with Bloomberg over teacher evaluations.

Is mayoral control now a bargaining chip? Will the candidates trade it for toothless evaluations or big raises?

The questions are not academic. By revealing their desperation, the candidates opened the door to an endless number of outrageous demands.

Payout doesn’t compute

The Post report on city workers with big overtime pay includes Pablo Martinez, a computer programmer at the Board of Elections. His total haul of $210,000 more than doubled his $98,000 salary.

For that, taxpayers should at least get election computers that work.

Long live Carson, & ‘Downton’

As they watch major characters get killed off, fans of “Downton Abbey” are afraid the show is winding down. First it was Lady Sybil, and now Matthew is gone.

Fear not. As in any self-respecting British drama, the butler is the center of the universe, so “Downton” will last as long as Carson (right) does. When he goes, then it’s over.